2020 (1) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e subscribers. For the portion remitted to M/s Fastway, M/s Fastway is discharging service tax liability on the consideration received from the appellants and the subscription retained by the appellant, if they are falling below the threshold exemption limit in terms of Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 1.03.2005, the appellants were not paying service tax on the ground that they are not liable to pay service tax and did not get some registered with the department. On the basis of intelligence, the appellants were asked to provide the details of their activity and immediately, thereafter investigation was conducted at the end of the MSO i.e. M/s Fastway. The revenue collected data from M/s Fastway and for the data supplied by M/s Fastway, various show cause notices were issued to the asessees to demand of service tax on the gross amounts received by the appellant from the subscriber for providing cable operator service. The show cause notice was adjudicated, demand of service tax on gross amount of service charged by the appellant was confirmed by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 alleging that the appellants are providing branded service,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....act affixed to the jute bags is the name of the procurer agency in question such as the FCI, the State Government of Punjab and so on, the crop year, the name of the jute mill concerned, its BIS certification number and the statement that the food grains are manufactured in India. It is clear that all the aforesaid markings have, on the pain of penalty, to be done by the manufacturers of the jute bags, given the Jute Control Order and the requisition orders made thereunder. Obviously, such markings are made by compulsion of law, which are meant for identification, monitoring and control by Governmental agencies involved in the PDS. Neither do such markings enhance the value of the jute bags in any manner nor is it the intention of the appellants to so enhance the value of jute bags, which is necessary if Excise duty is to be imposed. This flows from the expression "...for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark...". In the present case, the markings on the jute bags are not for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the jute bag and some person u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....above cited judicial pronouncements, we hold that the appellants are not providing any branded services, therefore, the appellants are entitled to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. b) Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not? We find that the appellants were under bonafide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax as they are entitled for benefit of exemption under notification no. 6/2005- ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, therefore, they did not pay service tax. Moreover, there was confusion in the industry during the relevant period whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax or the MSO liable to pay service tax on their activity, in that circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants. Therefore, we hold that the extended period is not invokable as held by the Tribunal in the case of Trans Yamuna Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi - 2017 (52) STR 31 (Tri.-Del.) wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- "4. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....liable to pay service tax on the gross value of the services provided by them or not? We find that in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of subscription received by them. The said view having the support of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "24. In this hue, the expression 'such' occurring in Section 67 of the Act assumes importance. In other words, valuation of taxable services for charging service tax, the authorities are to find what is the gross amount charged for providing 'such' taxable services. As a fortiori, any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such 'taxable service'. That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of the Rules went much bey....